An old 19th century textbook I have on mineralogy opens with this sentence:

[MineralMan]

"We are to study minerals."

We are to think. We are to learn. We are to wonder. We are to imagine. We are to dream. We are to examine.

Descartes got it backwards. It is not so much "I think, therefore I am." It is more like, "I am, therefore I think."

A fine difference, but a real one.

One wag has co-opted Descartes and says, "I believe, therefore I am." That person has it backwards, too. That should also read, "I am, therefore I believe."

Existence comes before thought or belief.

Belief is a type of thought. It needn't be based on anything factual, though. Knowing is another type of thought. It must be based on evidence. I cannot know what I have not experienced. I can understand what someone else says about what he or she knows, but I cannot actually know that it is true. If someone tells me about the crystal structure of calcite, for example, I can trust that they have studied crystallography and give credence to that statement. Or, I can study the crystallography of calcite for myself and confirm that it is correct.

Either way, the information is based on evidence. I needn't "believe" it to be true, since I can study the reality myself, if I choose to do so.

That is not true of religion, which must be believed without evidence. If I believe something that has no evidence, I cannot verify it in any way. If I trust someone who tells me about something that has no evidence and accept the truth of what has been said, I am a fool. If I cannot verify, I cannot know.

There is an enormous gulf between belief and knowledge. I cannot see evidence that does not exist, so if I believe without knowledge, I make a mistake that has been made over and over again.

We are to study reality.